Earl Scheib Strikes Again: 1993 Ford Probe vs 1996 Geo Metro

So far this week, we’ve been looking at cars that are in desperate need of some cosmetic attention. Today we’re going to alter course very slightly, and check out two old cars that have already been repainted – but not particularly well. They look all right at first glance, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Yesterday’s Chevies were not much of a contest; you’d have to be in need of a Gambler-ready vehicle to want that Astro, because it’s really the only thing it’s good for anymore. The Camaro is a much more viable project, and while many of you weren’t thrilled about its price relative to its condition, it cruised to an easy win.

This was an easy one for me; I actually really like third-gen Camaros, and I have ever since they first appeared. I built a 1/8 scale Monogram model kit of one when I was young, and I have another such kit now that I just recently started to build. I’m not sure I have any use for a real one, but a big plastic one to admire on the shelf? Hell yeah.

Repainting a car is a sure-fire way to make it look good – if it is done well. The trouble is that doing it well is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and therefore expensive if you pay someone else to do it. Can you have it done cheaper? Sure, and some of you may remember that once upon a time, a guy named Earl Scheib made a whole career out of cheap paint jobs. I’ve borne witness to quite a few Scheib paint jobs over the years, and let’s just say you get what you pay for. Cheap DIY painting methods have gained popularity in recent years and can yield some good results if you take your time. I suspect that one of today’s cars is a cheap Earl Scheib-style respray, and the other is probably DIY. They both look better than they probably did before the paint job, at least. Let’s check them out.

1993 Ford Probe SE – $3,500

Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Tucson, AZ

Odometer reading: 171,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

I get it, naming cars is tough. And I know this car was supposed to be the Ford Mustang before Mustang fans threw a hissy-fit and made Ford reconsider at the last moment. But I still think Ford could have come up with something better, less smirk-inducing, something that would not have required an embarrased young mechanic working in St Paul, Minnesota in the 1990s to have to walk into a service garage waiting room and say to an attractive woman, “Ma’am, your Probe is ready.”

The Probe is, of course, basically just a Mazda 626. The body and interior are unique to Ford, but the chassis, suspension, engine, and transmission are the same. This Probe has the basic 2.0-liter four-cylinder, backed by a four-speed automatic transmission. That transmission has caused 626, MX-6, and Probe owners a lot of grief over the years, but this one has been rebuilt recently. It also has had a bunch of brake and suspension work, and the seller says it runs and drives well.

Ford toned down the weirdness of the interior for the second-generation Probe; gone were the odd side pods on either side of the instrument cluster and the cool but hard-to-read digital dash. The seating position is also lower, which was a trend in sporty coupes in the 90s that I never liked. This one looks like it’s in decent shape inside, but it is faded and dusty. The seller says neither the heat nor the air conditioner works; I’m going to be optimistic and say that’s only because the blower motor doesn’t work.

I actually like the color they chose to paint it, but I do wish they had painted the door and trunk sills. The car used to be red, and the red sills look awful. And I have a feeling that the paint job is better in photos than it is in person. But it does have those great directional three-spoke wheels.

1996 Geo Metro – $3,300

Engine/drivetrain: 1.0-liter overhead cam inline 3, five-speed manual, FWD

Location: Tucson, AZ

Odometer reading: 173,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

What is it about small, economical “people’s cars” that makes them so endearing? Sentimentality and familiarity account for some of it, but not all; I get the warm fuzzies from humble cars that I’ve never driven, like 2CVs and Renault 4s and Skoda 110s. There’s just something charming about them that makes me want to drive them, more so than exotics and supercars, even. I know they’re probably slow, and crude, and uncomfortable, but also probably a hell of a lot of fun in spite of that. I know that, because this people’s car I know pretty well, and it’s slow, and crude, and uncomfortable, and a hell of a lot of fun.

The second-generation Metro is a little less tin-canny than the first, but it’s still clearly an economy car, with the same one-liter three-cylinder engine driving the front wheels. Fifty horsepower isn’t much, despite what Jason says, but it is fun to be able to wring out every last bit of power a car has to give and still barely break the speed limit. And the Metro’s engine does like to rev, which makes running through the gears of its five-speed transmission more fun than it should be. This one runs and drives well, and the seller says his grandfather drives it “everywhere.”

We only get one photo of the interior, and it’s, um, disturbing. Not because of the interior’s condition, but because of its contents. The legs and feet of a doll or a mannequin are just visible on the passenger’s seat; I have a feeling it’s one of those awful “time out” dolls that some folks like to put on cars at car shows. Or maybe Grandpa is a ventriloquist. Either way, it would be better if it weren’t in the photo. And actually, now that I look closer, you can see the creepy-ass thing looking out the window in the photo below.

I like the color choices here too, though I do question where they chose to make the two-tone split. Why right across the hood like that? It looks strange. I also hope they used the right primer on the gray plastic bumpers, or else that paint is going to fall right off. The white wheels are a perfect touch, though.

If you need a cheap car, I guess a sketchily-repainted twenty-footer holds more appeal than something rusty or faded or mismatched – as long as it runs well, and these both seem to. In fact, they both seem like pretty good, honest, old cars to me. A little expensive, maybe, but maybe the shiny paint is worth a little more. What do you think? Which one appeals to you?